# Do we really have a right to smoke?



## brianwalden

I hope this is in the right forum, please move or delete it if it's inappropriate. I'm not philosopher, so please correct any errors in my logic. I always get a little uncomfortable when I hear the phrase smoker's rights or right to smoke. Maybe my definition of a right is a little outdated, but to me rights are something that come from our human nature.

A few examples:
We have a right to life; that's our most basic purpose here on earth.
Because of our free-will we have a right to the legitimate exercise of our conscience.
We have a right to to educate our children because of our obligation to raise and provide for them.

And by extension I can see some other things also being labeled rights:
Because we have an obligation to defend our family and neighbor and we're not all Chuck Norris we have a right to bear arms.
And while in a perfect world we might share everything equally, in this imperfect world that usually only works in very small communities, so we have a right to own property.

But I find it hard to believe we truly have a right to smoke. There's nothing intrinsic in our human nature that leads to a right to smoke. I wonder if in this age where people claim a right for delicious animals to not be eaten or parents to murder their children, we want to make an argument that we have a right to smoke. I worry about lumping these government given "rights" (which as far as I can tell are really just privileges granted by our government until they feel like taking them away) with true rights that derive directly from our human nature.

Isn't a much better argument that it's imprudent to outlaw personal activities like smoking. That doing so makes it easier for authorities to exercise control over more and more areas of our lives. I realize such an argument doesn't make a great sound bite, but to me it seems more correct. The government has already demonstrated that they have the right to take away our "right" to drink - it's just stupid do to so and creates way more problems than it solves. Most people agree the 18th Amendment was imprudent but I don't think most people think it was a morally repugnant law. I see smoking as being in the same boat as drinking. 

Ok, I'll step off my soapbox.


----------



## AspiringGent

I think you've hit on a good point that I'm sure others will agree and disagree with. Here's a few comments:

1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.

2)You hit the nail on the head about how to argue the smoking cause. Instead of treating cigar bans as a removal of a right, it is more of a stab at individual liberty. Perhaps we should ban cars, as motor vehicles cause far more deaths, etc, etc

3) If I have the right to smoke, does that mean the person next to me has the right to breath clean air?

:argue:


----------



## RJpuffs

The point here is not the "right to smoke" - but the freedom of choice, even if ones choice may be morally or medically wrong.

Smoking has health risks, there is no denying that. The level of risk varies from individual to individual, I have seen 90 year old grannies that have been chain smoking since the pterodactyl era - and they were in better physical condition that me! Others have dropped dead in their teens from various smoking related ailments - and some didn't even smoke. If one has a predisposition for a specific problem, you're gonna get it no matter if you smoke or inhale exhaust fumes walking to school/work.

By the same token, polluting our air is obviously a bad thing and will kill any living thing that breathes the air. Yet we make the choice to drive cars, that burn gasoline and add to the pollution.

Sugar filled soda - now there is a killer that targets kids. One can of Coca Cola will cause more damage than a box full of cigars. Yet we grant our kids the choice to imbibe that diabetes-in-a-can.

The bottom line is, I have free will and if I choose to risk my health and my life - be it puffing a cigar or pipe, or riding a bicycle down the streets in NY City, or riding the subway (Gawd, those things have never been cleaned) - I have every right do so without any do-gooder intervention. As long as I do not endanger those around me.

Drugs and booze - a different story. Those impair judgement and are linked to crimes and stupidity. No one has ever been pulled over for "driving while smoking" as there is no risk to others on the road.

If they want to tax us - grant us the right and dignity to light up, at least in sensibly designated smoking areas. NYC banned smoking in bars a few years ago, half the bars went out of business within a month. Stupid.


----------



## Theophilus

AspiringGent said:


> I think you've hit on a good point that I'm sure others will agree and disagree with. Here's a few comments:
> 
> 1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.
> 
> 2)You hit the nail on the head about how to argue the smoking cause. Instead of treating cigar bans as a removal of a right, it is more of a stab at individual liberty. Perhaps we should ban cars, as motor vehicles cause far more deaths, etc, etc
> 
> 3) If I have the right to smoke, does that mean the person next to me has the right to breath clean air?
> 
> :argue:


#1 is only true under social contract theory of rights. Under other theories, the concept of a right, or what is right, is something that is universally true for all people in all places at all times. These people argue that it is objectively wrong to do certain things, like to beat one's wife, and all who do, no matter what country they are in, are wrong.

To me the real issue is do we really have the right to the pursuit of happiness? If so, then if smoking makes me happy, then I have the right to smoke. If breathing clean air makes me happy, then I have the right to breathe clean air. Common courtesy dictates when and where one smokes outside. For instance, if I want to smoke and you don't like smoke, I'll take a few steps down wind so you don't have to breathe my smoke.

I believe property rights dictate when and where one smokes inside. If I own a business, the government has no right to tell me that it has to be a non-smoking establishment. For instance, in Alabama, if you go to eat at a Waffle House, everyone knows that there will be a lot of smoke inside. If you want to breathe clean air, you have the right to go eat somewhere else.

I say let business owners call the shots on smoking and let the free market determine who makes it and who doesn't.


----------



## DBCcigar

I agree with RJPuffs!

WTG!


----------



## DBCcigar

I agree with RJPuffs!


WTG!


----------



## jledou

A right not necessarily but the ability to make a choice concerning a legal product? yep.


----------



## brianwalden

Well, now, we're getting into first principles.



RJpuffs said:


> 1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.


What Theophilus said about rights being social constructs versus universal truths. I can't say with absolute certainty which view is correct, but if rights are just social constructs then I don't have a problem with claiming we have a "right to smoke". A right in that instance is whatever society/government says is a right and can change over time/location - so if we get enough people to agree with us then abracadabra! we have a right to smoke (of course, the danger is that this also works in the other direction).

Actually maybe that's why I don't like the whole social constructs view of rights. It gives the government the idea that it's its job to define rights. In my mind the government has no authority to define human rights, merely the obligation to recognize and protect them.



RJpuffs said:


> The point here is not the "right to smoke" - but the freedom of choice, even if ones choice may be morally or medically wrong.


I'd put forth that we do not have the freedom to do what is morally wrong (under the classical meaning of those words, not the modern meaning of freedom to do whatever we damn well please). If we had a method for determining non-empirical truths with the exactness that the scientific method can be used to determine empirical truths, I would support a wider range of laws dictating morality than are currently in existence.


----------



## strider72

Freedom of choice. To choose to eat too many Big Macs, steaks, smoke cigars like there is no tomorrow, not to elect that socialist SOB, drink brandy like water, etc. People have gotten used to the government taking a little at a time. The time for that to stop has passed. Give those SOB's nothing. Ring their phones of the hook, flood their email addresses, start our own poll to counter CNN/Gallup whatever, drag the nonparticipating ciggie-smokers into the political scene kicking and a screaming... 

We need to have a Freedom of Choice rally. To smoke, keep and bear arms, enjoy a Whiskey/whatever, drive a big SUV/Hot rod/motorcycle/whatever if we choose, to watch a good old shoot'em up, or read a good sci-fi novel. Because after they destroy the tobacco culture(which ain't gonna be easy), they are going to go after other luxuries/safety/healthissues or whatever they want to call it. Americans need to unite under the cause of freedom and stop this communist/socialist/democratic bull***t now. 

BTW Democracy is mob rule at it's core. So you can choose to live in this bastardized democracy we are in now or push for the constitutional republic we were.


----------



## slyder

I dont want "bear" arms! I think Id look just silly!

just incase somebody missed that..........im takin over as the spelling police.


----------



## strider72

Well, there is a thing called a dictionary, look up the different meanings of "bear". Your badge will probably be revoked....


----------



## s.tyler

i think we do have a right to smoke as we our the rulers of our bodies. however, rights do have limits and we do not possess the right to invade the air space of someone else. just as we have the right to smoke the person next to us has the right to not breathe our tobacco smoke. our government and political system has become too paternalistic in deciding what we can and cannot put into our bodies. as long as we are aware of a substance's risks and our use does not place someone else in danger than we should be free to use as we see fit.


----------



## slyder

strider72 said:


> Well, there is a thing called a dictionary, look up the different meanings of "bear". Your badge will probably be revoked....


oh you got me on that one........brain fart.....i was thinking of "bare" :frusty:

My bad....please continue.


----------



## Cigary

Do we have the inalienable right to eat Big Macs till we are rolled out on our gurney? Do we not have the inalienable right of self determination to eat, smoke, drink, breathe or engage in as long as it is not a threat to someone else? Bars and restaurants whose clientele caters to those who smoke,,,why are these places placed under an edict that says they can't smoke there when everybody agrees to the premise? Same thing for B&M's,,,,everyone who walks in there takes upon themselves an implied risk,,,no matter how small. I used to live in LA where the smog was so bad they gave health warnings everyday,,,why didn't they shut down the freeways? This country is all about being PC,,,we even engage in PC politics with the world so we don't hurt their precious feelings. Kim Jung ILL must be ecstatic as to how the Gentle Giant is taking all of the launches that Korea is doing. He thumbs his nose at us we talk about using "stong words of condemnation" at him,,,,,unreal. IN the words of Denis Leary,,,smoke em if you got em.


----------



## golfermd

I don't know about a right to smoke. But I do have the right to pursue happiness and to free speech (both of which are explicitly stated in the Constitution). Both of those are invoked when I enjoy a good cigar... :beerchug:


----------



## doublebassmusician

Importance Of Philosophy

Here's a good place to get started.
Yes, we have the right to smoke (whatever we want.)

Whoops.
We don't have a"right" to smoke. There's no such thing as "the right to smoke". But we do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If smoking makes us happy, then we "have the right" to do so.


----------



## brianwalden

Cigary said:


> Do we have the inalienable right to eat Big Macs till we are rolled out on our gurney? Do we not have the inalienable right of self determination to eat, smoke, drink, breathe or engage in as long as it is not a threat to someone else?


Assuming we do indeed have inalienable rights (ones which come from our human nature rather than being constructs of our social/legal system), then no we absolutely do not have the inalienable rights you mentioned above. It's not a crime against humanity to outlaw Big Macs. I'm sure there are food products that are outlawed in the US; that stuff in Absinthe comes to mind.

And we do not have the inalienable right to do whatever we please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. For example, no one has the inalienable right to act immorally even if they're only hurting themselves. A man and women have the legal right to engage in a consensual adulterous affair (except if there are any states that still have adultery legislation on the books), but not an inalienable right. They are breaking their promises to their spouses and family and abusing their sexuality; they have no right to do so regardless of whether or not they face legal consequences.

Anyway I guess this type of confusion is what I was trying to highlight in my original post. There's two types of rights: Rights which come from our basic human nature (it's debatable whether or not these actually exist) and rights which come from social and legal constructs. Even if we say inalienable human rights indeed exist, I find it tough to believe smoking is one of them. So If all we're saying is that smoking is a legal right, then we're correct but we're not saying much. That right can be taken away as long as the proper methods are used. If my neighbor doesn't like me smoking he can't come over and force me to stop, but he can elect a legislator who will pass a law to say I must stop. Just like that, no more right. I guess this is why I get uncomfortable with the rights argument. It sounds good and gets people all fired up, but I don't think it holds water under closer scrutiny.


----------



## Cigary

brianwalden said:


> Assuming we do indeed have inalienable rights (ones which come from our human nature rather than being constructs of our social/legal system), then no we absolutely do not have the inalienable rights you mentioned above. It's not a crime against humanity to outlaw Big Macs. I'm sure there are food products that are outlawed in the US; that stuff in Absinthe comes to mind.
> 
> And we do not have the inalienable right to do whatever we please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. For example, no one has the inalienable right to act immorally even if they're only hurting themselves. A man and women have the legal right to engage in a consensual adulterous affair (except if there are any states that still have adultery legislation on the books), but not an inalienable right. They are breaking their promises to their spouses and family and abusing their sexuality; they have no right to do so regardless of whether or not they face legal consequences.
> 
> Anyway I guess this type of confusion is what I was trying to highlight in my original post. There's two types of rights: Rights which come from our basic human nature (it's debatable whether or not these actually exist) and rights which come from social and legal constructs. Even if we say inalienable human rights indeed exist, I find it tough to believe smoking is one of them. So If all we're saying is that smoking is a legal right, then we're correct but we're not saying much. That right can be taken away as long as the proper methods are used. If my neighbor doesn't like me smoking he can't come over and force me to stop, but he can elect a legislator who will pass a law to say I must stop. Just like that, no more right. I guess this is why I get uncomfortable with the rights argument. It sounds good and gets people all fired up, but I don't think it holds water under closer scrutiny.


Then we are under whatever whim comes along and you can see throughout history why man has fought back to gain his or her rights. It is my inalienable right to live my life to whatever purpose suits me as long as that does not infringe upon someone elses rights. Do you really want to subordinate your rights to someone telling you what you can eat,,,smoke in your own home,,,,have relations with your wife without benefit of the courts to legislate what position is ok and what position is regarded as illegal,,,I understand your feelings but when you say that it's ok for a legislator to pass a law that infringes upon my rights,,,esp. when our forefathers came over here to deal with this kind of injustice,,,you become one goosestep away from Totalitarianism. I don't have the faith in our juris prudence that you have,,,I have seen too much in the last 50 years that tells me we are going down the same road that the Roman Empire went and we all know how that ended.

Secondly, you have doubts about if we even have rights as a human being,,,our nature. Don't we have an inalienable right to feed ourselves,,,to clothe ourselves,,,to have a place to eat our food,,,to protect our children,,,you see where I am going with this as the list is pretty long.

I don't think I could have said this any better:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315


----------



## CAJoe

When talking about rights we have to think where does rights come from. Most of the men who wrote the US Constitution belived that men were born with certain unalienable rights that came from our creator. If these rights came from God then man cannot take them away. When these rights are taken from us we have a right to fight back to regain our rights given to us from a higher authority. 

As for smoking rights we do have a right to Liberty and Happiness. Sitting down smoking a cigar is a liberty I enjoy and it make me happy. No one has a right to tell me I cannot do it, but on the other hand people have a right for me not to blow smoke in thier face. Federal government should have no right controlling tobacco in any way as it is a States Rights Issue via the 10th amendment. I know the feds try to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate smoking but that is not interperting the Constitution right as the 10th amendment pretty much lays it out (same can be said of gun control, health care, etc.). Private property and businesses should have a right to run thier businesses as they wish. If a business decides they want to allow smoking in thier PRIVATE establishment they should be able to. If the employees/customers disagree they can quit/not patronize the business. If we willingly give up the liberty to smoke the government will move on to taking the next liberty, we need to fight them tooth and nail on every front possible. We should not back down. If you give this up what will you give up next?


----------



## brianwalden

Cigary said:


> Then we are under whatever whim comes along and you can see throughout history why man has fought back to gain his or her rights.


We're always under whatever whim comes along. Inalienable rights don't stop tyrants, they just make tyrants morally wrong. Only a more powerful tyrant stops a tyrant.



Cigary said:


> It is my inalienable right to live my life to whatever purpose suits me as long as that does not infringe upon someone elses rights.


Then where do inalienable rights come from? It's my understanding that the classical western view is they come from man's nature (purpose, end, telos, etc). If rights do indeed come from our nature and authorities are morally obligated to respect and defend men's rights, then the logical flipside of that seems to be that man is obligated to live according to his nature.

I am familiar with philosophies that say man has a right to do whatever he wants so long as he's not harming someone else, but as far as I know they don't claim inalienable rights. I think they usually deny any type of absolute truth so they claim rights are social constructs rather than universal.



Cigary said:


> Do you really want to subordinate your rights to someone telling you what you can eat,,,smoke in your own home,,,,have relations with your wife without benefit of the courts to legislate what position is ok and what position is regarded as illegal,,,I understand your feelings but when you say that it's ok for a legislator to pass a law that infringes upon my rights,,,esp. when our forefathers came over here to deal with this kind of injustice,,,you become one goosestep away from Totalitarianism. I don't have the faith in our juris prudence that you have,,,I have seen too much in the last 50 years that tells me we are going down the same road that the Roman Empire went and we all know how that ended.


I think we're speaking two different languages even though our political views are similar. I don't trust our goverment to do much more than keep law and order. I do not want to let someone tell me what I can eat and smoke in my own home. When I said it would be ok for a legislator to do so I meant there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it in the moral sense, not that such a thing is politically prudent. I refer back to the 18th ammendment which established Prohibition. It wasn't morally wrong or a violation of anyone's inalienable rights; it was just stupid. As far as I can tell there would be nothing morally wrong with a similar ammendment to outlaw smoking, but even if it didn't lead to the bootlegging and crime the 18th ammendment did I would still oppose it because I don't want the government getting it's hands on anything else. I agree with you on the Roman Empire part - too many of us are too enthralled by the bread and circuses to realize the government is picking our pockets and expanding it's power over our lives.

Legislating relations between a man and wife is certainly a violation of inalienable rights and in a whole separate category from laws governing certain types of food or smoking - but I think you threw that in there just for effect.



Cigary said:


> Secondly, you have doubts about if we even have rights as a human being,,,our nature. Don't we have an inalienable right to feed ourselves,,,to clothe ourselves,,,to have a place to eat our food,,,to protect our children,,,you see where I am going with this as the list is pretty long.


I don't have doubts. I agree the things you mention in this paragraph are all inalienable rights. After my original post (where I assumed everyone agreed that inalienable rights existed) AspiringGent made (and Theophilus clarified) a comment that many people see human rights as a subjective cultural construct rather than objective universal rights. Because I never intended this to be a discussion of whether or not inalienable rights exist, in my posts after that I tried to account for both views. I think the point I was trying to make, that arguing we have a right to smoke may not be the best method, applies to both worldviews. I think the risk of our government becoming even more powerful and controlling is a better argument against smoking legislation from a logical perspective, although the rights angle is probably easier to market and sell.


----------



## AspiringGent

RJpuffs said:


> Drugs and booze - a different story. Those impair judgement and are linked to crimes and stupidity. No one has ever been pulled over for "driving while smoking" as there is no risk to others on the road.


This argument gets a little sticky once you talk about governments which take responsibility for the health of their citizens. If the government has the people's mandate to provide universal healthcare, then it has a responsibility to discourage unhealthy behaviour, does it not?


----------



## brianwalden

A lot of people have mentioned "the pursuit of Happiness." To me this term has always bothered me slightly; sometimes I wonder if Jefferson was purposely using it ambiguously so it could mean different things to different people. Still, I don't think any of the founding fathers meant it to mean freedom to do whatever makes you happy as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I think the founding fathers meant Happiness in more of the objective sense than the subjective (the capital H hints at this). If I had to quantify it I would say maybe 75% objective, 25% subjective.

Just look at the language of the Declaration: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "laying its foundation on such principles", "Prudence", "it is their duty", "necessity". For every right that the Declaration lists, it also lists an obligation. I see the three biggies the same way. We have a right to Life and an obligation to defend Life; a right to Liberty and an obligation to form and exercise our Conscience; a right to the pursuit of Happiness and an obligation to pursue the End in which we were created to find Happiness.

You can take the Declaration of Independence or leave it (I take it), but I don't think you can take it and then interpret "pursuit of Happiness" to mean an inalienable right to do whatever you damn well please. It just doesn't fit the language of the rest of the document. The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.

We have always had all kinds of limitations on doing what makes us happy in the small, personal sense of the word. Most of us can't build a shed on our property without a permit, no matter how well trained we are we can't drive without a license and registration, we can't choose to only pay taxes on the programs we wish to support, for much of our history there were laws restricting commerce on Sunday, etc. There are now and have always been tons of restrictions on things we want to do that don't directly harm other people. We might grumble about these restrictions but we don't call them tyranny.

Now I'm not saying our government should get involved in every aspect of our lives. I personally believe in keeping our government as small as possible. But what I'm saying is if it does start to become more powerful, it's not necessarily a violation of our rights. If mobs of people were patrolling the streets, accosting smokers, and destroying their tobacco we could rightly appeal to the government to protect our legal rights. But when its the government who is following the prescribed methods to take away our legal right to smoke, we can't appeal to our legal rights - once the law is changed our rights no longer exist. We must appeal to other arguments like, for example, the danger caused by the growing influence of the government in the minutia of every day life.


----------



## CAJoe

brianwalden said:


> A lot of people have mentioned "the pursuit of Happiness." To me this term has always bothered me slightly; sometimes I wonder if Jefferson was purposely using it ambiguously so it could mean different things to different people. Still, I don't think any of the founding fathers meant it to mean freedom to do whatever makes you happy as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I think the founding fathers meant Happiness in more of the objective sense than the subjective (the capital H hints at this). If I had to quantify it I would say maybe 75% objective, 25% subjective.
> 
> Just look at the language of the Declaration: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "laying its foundation on such principles", "Prudence", "it is their duty", "necessity". For every right that the Declaration lists, it also lists an obligation. I see the three biggies the same way. We have a right to Life and an obligation to defend Life; a right to Liberty and an obligation to form and exercise our Conscience; a right to the pursuit of Happiness and an obligation to pursue the End in which we were created to find Happiness.
> 
> You can take the Declaration of Independence or leave it (I take it), but I don't think you can take it and then interpret "pursuit of Happiness" to mean an inalienable right to do whatever you damn well please. It just doesn't fit the language of the rest of the document. The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.
> 
> We have always had all kinds of limitations on doing what makes us happy in the small, personal sense of the word. Most of us can't build a shed on our property without a permit, no matter how well trained we are we can't drive without a license and registration, we can't choose to only pay taxes on the programs we wish to support, for much of our history there were laws restricting commerce on Sunday, etc. There are now and have always been tons of restrictions on things we want to do that don't directly harm other people. We might grumble about these restrictions but we don't call them tyranny.
> 
> Now I'm not saying our government should get involved in every aspect of our lives. I personally believe in keeping our government as small as possible. But what I'm saying is if it does start to become more powerful, it's not necessarily a violation of our rights. If mobs of people were patrolling the streets, accosting smokers, and destroying their tobacco we could rightly appeal to the government to protect our legal rights. But when its the government who is following the prescribed methods to take away our legal right to smoke, we can't appeal to our legal rights - once the law is changed our rights no longer exist. We must appeal to other arguments like, for example, the danger caused by the growing influence of the government in the minutia of every day life.


The original wording was "Pursuit of Property" but that was reworded to "Pursuit of Happiness". What can make one person happy and not the other is extremely subjective. Really the only way to look at this is to look at the intent of it when it was written. the Founders wrote many articles on this subject.



brianwalden said:


> We're always under whatever whim comes along. Inalienable rights don't stop tyrants, they just make tyrants morally wrong. Only a more powerful tyrant stops a tyrant.


This is not true. The will of the people can stop a tyrant as was proved through many revolutions. We have the right to take back our rights.



brianwalden said:


> Then where do inalienable rights come from? It's my understanding that the classical western view is they come from man's nature (purpose, end, telos, etc). If rights do indeed come from our nature and authorities are morally obligated to respect and defend men's rights, then the logical flipside of that seems to be that man is obligated to live according to his nature.


Many cultures belived these natural rights were derived from a supreme being, a creator. As was the case these rights existed over any man or men and can not be taken away by any mere mortal.



brianwalden said:


> I don't have doubts. I agree the things you mention in this paragraph are all inalienable rights. After my original post (where I assumed everyone agreed that inalienable rights existed) AspiringGent made (and Theophilus clarified) a comment that many people see human rights as a subjective cultural construct rather than objective universal rights. Because I never intended this to be a discussion of whether or not inalienable rights exist, in my posts after that I tried to account for both views. I think the point I was trying to make, that arguing we have a right to smoke may not be the best method, applies to both worldviews. I think the risk of our government becoming even more powerful and controlling is a better argument against smoking legislation from a logical perspective, although the rights angle is probably easier to market and sell.


I think the rights angle is definantly something we should use to fight this because smoking is our right and our choice. The other ground we should fight this on is States Rights. The Federal Government has no right to pass laws regarding smoking. Nowhere in the articles for the 3 branches of government does it give them the power to regulate tobacco. the 10th amendment by default gives this right to the states. It seems some states are finally waking up and reminding the government that they do not have the supreme power they think they have. Montana is doing this with the "Made in Montana" forearms and I salute them.


----------



## Cigary

Well, all things being said I have my inalienable right to smoke my cigars,,,it's my right and I am going to exercise it. For those who might feel you don't have that right,,,PM me and I will give you my address so you can send all of your cigars to me when the cigar police try and shut you down,,,I will gladly take them off your hands.


----------



## brianwalden

Cigary said:


> Well, all things being said I have my inalienable right to smoke my cigars,,,it's my right and I am going to exercise it. For those who might feel you don't have that right,,,PM me and I will give you my address so you can send all of your cigars to me when the cigar police try and shut you down,,,I will gladly take them off your hands.


Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?

Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?


----------



## Theophilus

brianwalden said:


> The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.


I agreed with what you said up until this portion. "The unrestrained following of every little desire" is called "hedonism" and it is not a modern idea at all. It is in fact a very old idea that started with a Greek philosopher named Democritus in the 4th century BCE. I'm sure that the Framers were very aware of the dangers of hedonism when they were writing up the constitution.


----------



## Habanolover

brianwalden said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?


When you use alchohol, cocaine, heroin, etc you are possibly putting others in danger. After seeing so many alchohol and drug related auto accidents each year I have yet to find one where the driver was simply smoking a cigar. Not to mention that I have never met or heard of anyone that kills or robs to feed his cigar addiction.



brianwalden said:


> Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?


Yes they do. They also have the inalienable right not to patronize places that allow it.

Disclaimer: All the above is just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## brianwalden

madurolover said:


> When you use alchohol, cocaine, heroin, etc you are possibly putting others in danger. After seeing so many alchohol and drug related auto accidents each year I have yet to find one where the driver was simply smoking a cigar. Not to mention that I have never met or heard of anyone that kills or robs to feed his cigar addiction.


But what you describe is a logical contradiction. You're using a pragmatic argument to justify preventing everyone from performing some morally neutral action. But, if the government can justly prevent everyone from performing that action, then it wasn't an inalienable right to begin with. Your argument is that the risks to society caused by tobacco users are minuscule compared to drugs and even alcohol, to which I say the risk to society of building a 10 foot high fence around your property is even less than using tobacco but many places still prevent people from doing so just because it looks bad and can lower surrounding property values. So if we can outlaw 10 foot fences without violating someone's rights, why can't we outlaw tobacco? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying no one's rights will be violated)

For example, if 50% of parents in a town have totally abandoned their young children and are not providing them with food, clothing, shelter, etc, the local government can legitimately take the children from those people. But the government cannot justly take all the townspeople's children and prevent everyone from having any more children even though so many of the town's people are abusing their right to raise a family.

On the other hand, if 50% of alcohol drinkers in a town are getting into car accidents while intoxicated, the government can justly prevent everyone in the town from drinking alcohol. If drinking alcohol were truly a universal right like raising your children is, then no authority could legitimately deny everyone from drinking alcohol, they could only deny/punish those who abuse that right.

Americans have no inalienable legal rights - as far as I know there's no part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. Additionally, Jefferson was writing about inalienable rights 5 years before America's first Constitution. There's no way he could have been referring to inalienable legal rights; he was talking about inalienable human rights that apply to everyone in every time. So I think if we're going to use the term "inalienable rights" in the way that Jefferson did, we have to demonstrate that using tobacco is more like raising a family (which is one of the basic purposes of being human) than it is like drinking alcohol (which is a legitimate activity as long as we don't abuse it, but not not one of the purposes of being human).


----------



## T_Money

AspiringGent said:


> If the government has the *people's *mandate to provide universal healthcare, then it has a responsibility to discourage unhealthy behaviour, does it not?


The problem is that you use a collectivist term that is inherently false. You should say the government has the "majority's" or "enough of the right people's" mandate.


----------



## T_Money

brianwalden said:


> But what you describe is a logical contradiction. You're using a pragmatic argument to justify preventing everyone from performing some morally neutral action. But, if the government can justly prevent everyone from performing that action, then it wasn't an inalienable right to begin with. Your argument is that the risks to society caused by tobacco users are minuscule compared to drugs and even alcohol, to which I say the risk to society of building a 10 foot high fence around your property is even less than using tobacco but many places still prevent people from doing so just because it looks bad and can lower surrounding property values. So if we can outlaw 10 foot fences without violating someone's rights, why can't we outlaw tobacco? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying no one's rights will be violated)
> 
> For example, if 50% of parents in a town have totally abandoned their young children and are not providing them with food, clothing, shelter, etc, the local government can legitimately take the children from those people. But the government cannot justly take all the townspeople's children and prevent everyone from having any more children even though so many of the town's people are abusing their right to raise a family.
> 
> On the other hand, if 50% of alcohol drinkers in a town are getting into car accidents while intoxicated, the government can justly prevent everyone in the town from drinking alcohol. If drinking alcohol were truly a universal right like raising your children is, then no authority could legitimately deny everyone from drinking alcohol, they could only deny/punish those who abuse that right.
> 
> Americans have no inalienable legal rights - as far as I know there's no part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. Additionally, Jefferson was writing about inalienable rights 5 years before America's first Constitution. There's no way he could have been referring to inalienable legal rights; he was talking about inalienable human rights that apply to everyone in every time. So I think if we're going to use the term "inalienable rights" in the way that Jefferson did, we have to demonstrate that using tobacco is more like raising a family (which is one of the basic purposes of being human) than it is like drinking alcohol (which is a legitimate activity as long as we don't abuse it, but not not one of the purposes of being human).


The reason why I believe drunk driving is a legitimate arena for govt intervention is that the roads are owned by the government. Therefore the government should have the ability to impose rule over them. That said, I do not believe that the government should own the roads, or at least not pay for them through any non-targeted tax.

That said, no we do not have any right to smoke. However we absolutely have the right to make a cigar or buy a cigar if someone is selling it. We also absolutely have the right to smoke said cigar (or Bill Clinton it if that's what you're into) on your own property or someone who consents to me smoking there.


----------



## Cigary

brianwalden said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?
> 
> Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?


You post a question of Re: Do we really have a right to smoke?

People have answered their opinion and you still have a bug under your blanket and wish to debate this far past the first answer. People have a right to do whatever they want to,,,inalienable or not. Your question never did ask if it was inalienable,,,that was put in after. If I engage in anything that is against the law,,,then it is against the law. If I choose not to obey the law then I must deal with the consequences of breaking that law. If I believe that my Creator gave me the choice of engaging in those things that might be bad for me then take it up with him after you leave this world. If you don't believe in a Creator this all becomes a moot point as there is nobody to answer to according to what is an inalienable right. We have the right to be as good as we want to be or as bad as want to be,,,just be prepared for the consequences.

Light up a cigar and accept others rights to have an opinion without going into a debate. We can debate the merits of whether you have the right to debate opinions according to what you believe,,,I believe you have that right,,,even if you are wrong.:drum::lock1:


----------



## strider72

Let's close this reasonably... We have the right to hurt or not hurt ourselves and the government really should not be able to pry/bully/spy/violate in our lives as long as we are not hurting someone else. Of course there was a time when a community took care of itself without a "big brother" sticking his or her nose in it.


----------



## Frinkiac7

We have a right to make informed decisions about what nonlethal, not imminently dangerous things we do to our own bodies, in good conscience, that do not adversely affect others. 

Anyone who tells us otherwise is a raging fascist.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

I do belive a great man once said:



Bill Hicks said:


> Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about *****graphy and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I ****, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?


I also like this one, more to the point.



Bill Hicks said:


> I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your ****in' mouth.


I censored the expletives;This pretty much sums my feelings up on the subject, since most of what I would add to the conversation has been said.


----------



## Cigary

strider72 said:


> Let's close this reasonably... We have the right to hurt or not hurt ourselves and the government really should not be able to pry/bully/spy/violate in our lives as long as we are not hurting someone else. Of course there was a time when a community took care of itself without a "big brother" sticking his or her nose in it.


Gotta agree with this wholeheartedly. Not to get our panties into a bunch and not that a good debate is not healthy at times but this is losing ground here. No hard feelings towards anyone as that isn't how I roll,,,speak your mind and then move on,,,or at least try to.:caked:



Frinkiac7 said:


> We have a right to make informed decisions about what nonlethal, not imminently dangerous things we do to our own bodies, in good conscience, that do not adversely affect others.
> 
> Anyone who tells us otherwise is a raging fascist.


Amen brother,,,,love the last line! :biglaugh:


----------



## Stinkdyr

T_Money said:


> The problem is that you use a collectivist term that is inherently false. You should say the government has the "majority's" or "enough of the right people's" mandate.


Yep you are correct. You see, as Maggie Thatcher so rightly pointed out, "the problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." that about sums it up. and that is why I vote Libertarian.
:chk


----------



## defcon3

> A few examples: Because of our free-will we have a right to the legitimate exercise of our conscience.


So did Stalin and Mao Tse - didn't make them right, though they thought they were legitimate in their conscience...



> And while in a perfect world we might share everything equally,


Perhaps yours! Sounds like Communisim to me, and anyone who has studied history can see it is oppresive...



> There's nothing intrinsic in our human nature that leads to a right to smoke.


Gimme a break... If your argument is one of moral absolutes and/or moral relativisim, intrinsic values, and human nature, Good luck with that can of worms!!! No two people will agree on that...



> I worry about lumping these government given "rights" with true rights that derive directly from our human nature.


Another argument in itself, whatever your view of rights that derive from human nature would be, I assure you, every individual in this world would have their own opinion on that different from yours or mine for that mater.



> Isn't a much better argument that it's imprudent to outlaw personal activities like smoking.


It's currently legal and will continue. So long as there are taxes to be made, there will be smoking...



> That doing so makes it easier for authorities to exercise control over more and more areas of our lives.


Why would I want that?!? They are doing such a bang up job as it stands now, I don't think more control would be better...



> I realize such an argument doesn't make a great sound bite, but to me it seems more correct.


You have that "right", as PETA has theirs, and I also have mine...


----------



## phalynx

If we have a "right to healthcare" we sure as heck have a right to smoke!


----------



## AcridSaint

strider72 said:


> Let's close this reasonably... We have the right to hurt or not hurt ourselves and the government really should not be able to pry/bully/spy/violate in our lives as long as we are not hurting someone else. Of course there was a time when a community took care of itself without a "big brother" sticking his or her nose in it.


I was going to type something in here, but this is all I wanted to say ^


----------



## danmcmartin

There are many kinds of rights. Some are explicit (right to free speech, right to bear arms) as they are written in a document (Bill of Rights). Others, if you subscribe to the ideals America was founded on, are natural or God given rights (right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Others are implied by those natural rights (right to health care or to smoke). But all rights come with responsibility.

For instance, you may have the right to emergency health care, but you should be prepared to pay for it. You can obtain the service, but that doesn't mean you should expect it to be free of charge. If you can't pay that is one issue, but then you really shouldn't expect to receive much beyond emergency care. Anything beyond that without the consent of the payer is an infringement of their right to private property, in this case money (another natural right).

Smoking is similar. Smoke all you want, but get cancer and you should be willing to suffer that consequence without expecting society to pick up the bill. You shouldn't expect to smoke wherever you want either. Reasonable restrictions that protect others rights should be expected like no smoking in a court room or the DMV. Public places people are compelled to visit.

If you subscribe to the idea of negative liberty, as the Founding Fathers did, no one confers rights onto you, they just exist or are granted by the creator or God. You exercise them at your discretion without imposing on others rights. So yes, smoking is a right. At least, to my way of thinking and according to the founding ideals of the Untied States.


----------



## Yellowfever

I may see things too basic. But I think we have the right to do whatever we want and others have the right to stop us. We don't do certain things in life because we have a set or beliefs that it is wrong to do certain things and a set of laws that tell us it is wrong. Someone may say I don't have the "right to smoke" but who gives them the right to control me? As humans we give governments the right to tell us what we can and can't do. We try to respect each other in order to live peacefully. But what is a right and what isn't I think is only justified by a set of laws that a group of people create. To me it is the same as the question "is there a universal right and wrong"? We current Americans believe we have the right to pursue happiness. But that didn't exist during slavery. I guess a right is just a current belief of a group of people that has enough numbers that they can exert control over another group.


----------



## phatmax

Simple answer: Yes.

Simple reason: If you have ANY belief in a higher power, most likely you believe that God/Buddah, etc. gave man Natural Rights. Amongst those is self-governance over one's body.

God made all men equal... Thus, you have power over your body, but no one else's.

Simply... If I do something to my body that you don't like....stuff it.

Problems come into being when the nanny statists, who may give lip service to religion,...truely believe they are smarter and better then the masses and SHOULD be given free rein over the lives of the lesser people.

Pride goeth before the fall.


----------



## Cigary

phatmax said:


> Simple answer: Yes.
> 
> Simple reason: If you have ANY belief in a higher power, most likely you believe that God/Buddah, etc. gave man Natural Rights. Amongst those is self-governance over one's body.
> 
> God made all men equal... Thus, you have power over your body, but no one else's.
> 
> Simply... If I do something to my body that you don't like....stuff it.
> 
> Problems come into being when the nanny statists, who may give lip service to religion,...truely believe they are smarter and better then the masses and SHOULD be given free rein over the lives of the lesser people.
> 
> Pride goeth before the fall.


I agree but would also add,,,as long as what I do does not infringe upon your rights or harm you,,,do not legislate to me what is right or wrong for me.


----------



## bigtattoo79

Yes I feel I have the right to smoke.



I think its time we talk about the governments rights.
I already know what my rights are.
The government is the one that got it scr$w$d up.

The government is payed by and works for us!!

Thanks Lance


----------



## danmcmartin

bigtattoo79 said:


> The government is payed by and works for us!!


Right! The Government doesn't have any rights, it has powers. Those powers are derived from the constitution and exercised by the will of the people. Honestly, we are the ones that have messed up. We the people have sat by while our government has wielded powers not granted to it by the constitution. We need to exercise our rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, etc. and demand the government back off.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who give up a little liberty to achieve security, deserve neither liberty or security.


----------



## sboyajian

brianwalden said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?
> 
> Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?


Cigars don't alter your mental state. If I smoke a cigar in my car on the way to work, by the time I get to work, I'm the same mental state as I was when I left the house.

If I decided to do a line of coke at a stop light, smoke a j, shot up some black tar heroine and drink a bottle of scotch.. not only am I probably going to kill someone on the way, but if I did make it to my destination, there is no way I'd be any good to anyone.


----------



## Ashbrook

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

We, as Americans, understand the "pursuit of happiness" to mean property. For a decent piece on this clarification, see George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (I believe that is the correct document). The right to property has several aspects, among them the ability to acquire, own, use, and dispose of property. The answer to your question, then, is that we have a right - a natural right - to use tobacco products for our own benefit or detriment.

The issue is whether an activity is harmful to another person. Secondhand smoke is an issue that could be well argued as a means for restricting the activity to an individual's property. Businesses should be able to allow smoking inside their establishments, and there is rarely a case to be made for restricting the use of tobacco within one's home.

Harder drugs are another issue... and somewhat more difficult. That is another discussion.


----------



## Yellowfever

danmcmartin said:


> Right! The Government doesn't have any rights, it has powers. Those powers are derived from the constitution and exercised by the will of the people. Honestly, we are the ones that have messed up. We the people have sat by while our government has wielded powers not granted to it by the constitution. We need to exercise our rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, etc. and demand the government back off.
> 
> To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who give up a little liberty to achieve security, deserve neither liberty or security.


So true. I like that line from the Movie V for Vendetta. "People shouldn't fear it's government, the government should fear the people"


----------



## danmcmartin

Yellowfever said:


> So true. I like that line from the Movie V for Vendetta. "People shouldn't fear it's government, the government should fear the people"


I love that movie!!! You heare what's going on over there and its not far off. I've heard they have discussed inventorying your pantry to see what you eat. The next step is deciding what care you get based on that assessment. Puhlease!


----------



## orca99usa

> If I have the right to smoke, does that mean the person next to me has the right to breath clean air?


I had a civics teacher in high school who was fond of saying "Your rights end where mine begin". What he was basically saying is that one person's rights don't supersede another's. This is one big problem I have with people who push for total smoking bans (indeed, anyone who tries to impose their will on everyone else) while they breathe in worse stuff just stepping outside if they live in a major metropolitan area. If you ban everything that is potentially harmful. there won't be anything left. Even drinking too much water can be harmful to you.


----------



## Stinkdyr

I agree. Vote out all incumbents every chance you get.
Kennedy for life????



bigtattoo79 said:


> Yes I feel I have the right to smoke.
> 
> I think its time we talk about the governments rights.
> I already know what my rights are.
> The government is the one that got it scr$w$d up.
> 
> The government is payed by and works for us!!
> 
> Thanks Lance


----------



## Hermit

Yes, dammit, we *do *have a right to smoke!


----------



## danmcmartin

Hermit said:


> Yes, dammit, we *do *have a right to smoke!


Sure, we could have said it like that, but then we don't get to show off our blabbing skills.

:blah:

Just remember that is not about saving you from yourself, that's just the reason they give. Its about controlling you and keeping you from engaging in activities they find offensive. Some people just can't wrap there heads around the idea of live and let live.


----------



## Habanolover

danmcmartin said:


> Some people just can't wrap there heads around the idea of live and let live.


----------



## Stinkdyr

Freedom.......what a radical concept. :rockon:

>> Just remember that is not about saving you from yourself, that's just the reason they give. Its about controlling you and keeping you from engaging in activities they find offensive. Some people just can't wrap there heads around the idea of live and let live.[/QUOTE] >>


----------



## golfermd

Remember when liberalism and Democrat meant standing up for individual freedoms? Not anymore. Today it stands for Socialism. As said below, it's all about regulations and control.


----------



## danmcmartin

madurolover said:


>


Clever!!!


----------



## Jack Straw

I'd say I do have some form of a right to smoke, because even if they try to take it away the internet will bring me tobacco from overseas anyway.


----------



## danmcmartin

brianwalden said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?
> 
> Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?


You miss the point. You have an inalienable right to use those things. The government can't take away your right. You could go down to the corner, buy some pot and smoke in your basement right now. But they have criminalized it. The Government's power to do so is questionable. Personally, I think any argument for criminalizing those things is constitutionally weak. But you still have the right. But like all rights, you must be willing to face the consequences of exercising the right, in these cases, possibly prison.

And ya, darn right you have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke. But you can't exercise that right at the smoker's expense. If you don't like it go elsewhere. The smoker has no obligation to insure your rights are exercised, that's your responsibility if you don't like the smoke.

That is the problem. Too many people don't want to take responsibility for their own happiness. They expect others to change their behaviors to suit them.


----------



## GJProductions

If a country says enjoying a cigar isn't a right, well, I wont be in that country.
I love freedom, thank you American soldiers old and young for your contribution!
:usa2:


----------



## Delsana

Hello everyone,

Without further adieu, let's get to the center of this...


Well they're two cases that relate to this, and they are as follows:

A. First we have the situation of whether or not it is simply a right of your own or the government, and in this case it's going to be the governments, because there are many things you can't do to yourself without either violating case B, or the law, and very few people will accept or condone such actions, such as suicide, and other such things. So no what you can do to yourself is infinite in realistic terms, but in legal and proper terms you are limited quite a bit in what is "right" and what is "wrong".

So on this case no, you don't have this right, and while it may be infringing on your free-will or your ability to guide your own self and not be restricted by overbearing laws or rules, it still will happen, and the truth is there is only so much you can.

Never forget that logic always takes root in these cases, and while you can argue that vehicles produce the same gases and chemicals that are destroying society, and are thus what should be focused on, the response is that they already are, and so the question you need to ask yourself is as follows:

"What will I do when all the things I can compare my habit or choice to, in regards to worse or better, are changed, already resolved, or no longer applicable?"

The truth is, when that happens, you truly will be in a "rut" so to speak, a trap that cannot be broken or bypassed without your own forfeiture of that which caused the trap in the first place.

Now we lead to case B.

B. In the other form of right, many people say "God-given rights", and then they respect, and even worship or thank God for their ability to smoke, do drugs, and other such things (because after all these things were created or atleast their initial forms were formed by God during the creation and forming of this planet), which while it sounds right, you also have to look into what the Bible and what religion really does state, and very blatantly two things are stated.

1. Your body is the Temple of God, as such you will do no harm to it, or project any defacement.

2. God is to come first in your life, thus the rules are blatant, you have no decision or violation in such cases, and it isn't up for interpretation, and while God may not actually have you kill your first-born son, if he asks or tells you to, you will be willing to do so, for His will and His work is greater than us all.

These are blatantly stated, and very quickly do your rights become devastated in that case, ESPECIALLY to those who focus on the "God-given" right to do such things.

Also while God does not care for Man's law, and thus it is not important aside from survival on this world, His law is to always supercede it, and as such you are meant to make certain it does, and nothing comes before him.

-------------

There are other cases, but these relate the most to the prime two arguments I hear every once and a while regarding these issues.

Hope I gave some insight, and I can provide facts and support for everything if asked.

Best of luck in your ventures,



- B. :spy:

Edit:

Oh my, I just noticed I misread the recent dates, and I'm a month off (*sigh*).


----------



## Cigary

Delsana said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Without further adieu, let's get to the center of this...
> 
> Well they're two cases that relate to this, and they are as follows:
> 
> A. First we have the situation of whether or not it is simply a right of your own or the government, and in this case it's going to be the governments, because there are many things you can't do to yourself without either violating case B, or the law, and very few people will accept or condone such actions, such as suicide, and other such things. So no what you can do to yourself is infinite in realistic terms, but in legal and proper terms you are limited quite a bit in what is "right" and what is "wrong".
> 
> So on this case no, you don't have this right, and while it may be infringing on your free-will or your ability to guide your own self and not be restricted by overbearing laws or rules, it still will happen, and the truth is there is only so much you can.
> 
> Never forget that logic always takes root in these cases, and while you can argue that vehicles produce the same gases and chemicals that are destroying society, and are thus what should be focused on, the response is that they already are, and so the question you need to ask yourself is as follows:
> 
> "What will I do when all the things I can compare my habit or choice to, in regards to worse or better, are changed, already resolved, or no longer applicable?"
> 
> The truth is, when that happens, you truly will be in a "rut" so to speak, a trap that cannot be broken or bypassed without your own forfeiture of that which caused the trap in the first place.
> 
> Now we lead to case B.
> 
> B. In the other form of right, many people say "God-given rights", and then they respect, and even worship or thank God for their ability to smoke, do drugs, and other such things (because after all these things were created or atleast their initial forms were formed by God during the creation and forming of this planet), which while it sounds right, you also have to look into what the Bible and what religion really does state, and very blatantly two things are stated.
> 
> 1. Your body is the Temple of God, as such you will do no harm to it, or project any defacement.
> 
> 2. God is to come first in your life, thus the rules are blatant, you have no decision or violation in such cases, and it isn't up for interpretation, and while God may not actually have you kill your first-born son, if he asks or tells you to, you will be willing to do so, for His will and His work is greater than us all.
> 
> These are blatantly stated, and very quickly do your rights become devastated in that case, ESPECIALLY to those who focus on the "God-given" right to do such things.
> 
> Also while God does not care for Man's law, and thus it is not important aside from survival on this world, His law is to always supercede it, and as such you are meant to make certain it does, and nothing comes before him.
> 
> -------------
> 
> There are other cases, but these relate the most to the prime two arguments I hear every once and a while regarding these issues.
> 
> Hope I gave some insight, and I can provide facts and support for everything if asked.
> 
> Best of luck in your ventures,
> 
> - B. :spy:
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Oh my, I just noticed I misread the recent dates, and I'm a month off (*sigh*).


You might take some ribbing about this verse in Genesis 22:64:
Notice the _reaction_ of Rebekah in verse 64, *"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel."* 

I know what your response will be to this and I am being facetious with you. Understand that you will also take some negative shots from your stance as well from those who do believe in their religion as I do. Since our body is a temple,,,,what must we do when we know we live in a city that spews more pollution PPM every day than the cigars we might smoke in a week? We breather in exhaust, our ozone is a mess, busses spew more contaminants than a whole humidor full of cigars. We eat sugar like it's crack,,,we eat at BK and other fast food places everyday and our nation is obese. I really don't think that you have the "stripes" to tell anyone about their eternity based on one mans opinion. If you were to be Deity then of course I'd give you my undivided attention. Since you are flesh and blood like myself and do not speak for Deity I can pretty much feel confident that my eternity is still not in question. I respect your right to espouse your opinion but you have to know going in that it is an opinion.


----------



## Delsana

Right, that has nothing to do with the inhalation of substances, however.

1. "Camel's" were not substances to be inhaled.

2. Knowing the meaning of that word in its old form makes it seem proper and not in any manner against what I said.

I understand what you're doing but also understand that while I'm not against your decisions, I am simply not supportive of laying it on God as if his word supports it, when it so clearly does not. If there are so many dangerous things in life, avoid them, or do not do them.

For instance, I don't partake in fast food, rarely am around fumes, and make certain that I live a healthy life, also having counters to unhealthy things around me by doing more healthy things during those times or after those times.

Just because things are "bad" doesn't mean that "making it worse" doesn't matter. As such, if you choose to make said decisions that your own choice and fine I have no misgivings about it, however it's the excuses that irritate me, and if the main excuse is simply that everything else is killing us so why not do "this" as well, then you've got a pretty terrible defense.


----------



## commonsenseman

Cigary said:


> You might take some ribbing about this verse in Genesis 22:64:
> Notice the _reaction_ of Rebekah in verse 64, *"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel."* .



ound:




Cigary said:


> I know what your response will be to this and I am being facetious with you. Understand that you will also take some negative shots from your stance as well from those who do believe in their religion as I do. Since our body is a temple,,,,what must we do when we know we live in a city that spews more pollution PPM every day than the cigars we might smoke in a week? We breather in exhaust, our ozone is a mess, busses spew more contaminants than a whole humidor full of cigars. We eat sugar like it's crack,,,we eat at BK and other fast food places everyday and our nation is obese.


I agree, there are other things that are much more harmfull to our bodies than a little smoke. Next thing we'll be hearing that bonfires cause cancer.



Delsana said:


> Right, that has nothing to do with the inhalation of substances, however.
> 
> 1. "Camel's" were not substances to be inhaled.
> 
> 2. Knowing the meaning of that word in its old form makes it seem proper and not in any manner against what I said.
> 
> I understand what you're doing but also understand that while I'm not against your decisions, I am simply not supportive of laying it on God as if his word supports it, when it so clearly does not. If there are so many dangerous things in life, avoid them, or do not do them.
> 
> For instance, I don't partake in fast food, rarely am around fumes, and make certain that I live a healthy life, also having counters to unhealthy things around me by doing more healthy things during those times or after those times.
> 
> Just because things are "bad" doesn't mean that "making it worse" doesn't matter. As such, if you choose to make said decisions that your own choice and fine I have no misgivings about it, however it's the excuses that irritate me, and if the main excuse is simply that everything else is killing us so why not do "this" as well, then you've got a pretty terrible defense.


I belive that God gave us the choice to do whatever we want with our bodies. That being said, he did give us guidelines to live by. I'm pretty sure smoking cigars isn't mentioned in the Bible, I can't imaging someone deciphering the Bible as saying that smoking is a sin. I personally am not really concerned with the health effects of cigar smoking, I don't believe that they're near as bad for me as some "nanny-staters" would have us believe.

Just like my gun, they can have my cigar "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers".


----------



## Delsana

But, it's obvious that he didn't... it's even in the bible... if need be I'll quote the passage, but our bodies are meant to be a Temple to God, I'm quite a religious person so in my youth when I read that I made certain I followed it to the best of my ability.

You can do as you like, and you can be forgiven, but your body is supposed to follow those guidelines.


----------



## commonsenseman

Delsana said:


> But, it's obvious that he didn't... it's even in the bible... if need be I'll quote the passage, but our bodies are meant to be a Temple to God, I'm quite a religious person so in my youth when I read that I made certain I followed it to the best of my ability.
> 
> You can do as you like, and you can be forgiven, but your body is supposed to follow those guidelines.


Well good sir you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please take the following in the nicest way possible, I mean no offense whatsoever. But if you don't smoke, why are you on Puff.com?


----------



## Delsana

I actually never said yes or no either way, we all sin after all, I just make sure I limit it and don't make excuses about it.

However, the reason I'm here is because while I've stalked this site for a long time, and many others, I simply saw something I had a reply to, and then of course I made a few more replies to things while here.

I'm a socialist, and I like conversations, intelligent, witty, unique, wise, debates, it matters not what.


----------



## tobacmon

O K simple and straight to the point I always say----I'm up in the years so I would say leave me the F*** alone and I'll leave you alone! Mind your business & I'll mind mine.

Another phase comes to mind--"Don't start none won't be none!"

Hows That !

LOL


----------



## Cigary

Delsana said:


> But, it's obvious that he didn't... it's even in the bible... if need be I'll quote the passage, but our bodies are meant to be a Temple to God, I'm quite a religious person so in my youth when I read that I made certain I followed it to the best of my ability.
> 
> You can do as you like, and you can be forgiven, but your body is supposed to follow those guidelines.


*I'd probably put the shovel down before you dig a hole you can't fill in. Religion and cigars is probably not something that is going to be very entertaining on here. I think you are being given quite a bit of leeway on this subject and you need to understand that your opinion is your own and from what I read you have not been given the keys to the Kingdom nor have you been given entitlement to cast judgement. Remember that verse that says: Judge not that you be not judged? Not wanting to name any names but I'm pretty sure he spelled your name correctly.*



commonsenseman said:


> Well good sir you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please take the following in the nicest way possible, I mean no offense whatsoever. But if you don't smoke, why are you on Puff.com?


*Bingo!! That's like telling an alcoholic not to drink while you are sipping some kentucky bourbon out of a flask.*



Delsana said:


> I actually never said yes or no either way, we all sin after all, I just make sure I limit it and don't make excuses about it.
> 
> *So what you are saying is that you plan on breaking commandments even when you know what you are doing is wrong? My friend, you are all over the board here.*
> 
> However, the reason I'm here is because while I've stalked this site for a long time, and many others, I simply saw something I had a reply to, and then of course I made a few more replies to things while here.
> 
> I'm a socialist, and I like conversations, intelligent, witty, unique, wise, debates, it matters not what.


*Socialist? This is a cigar forum not a debating society and you really really might want to jot that down in your notes so you don't come off as instigating things. People on here are pretty good people who enjoy coming on here to talk about a hobby they love and the last thing I think they want to hear is someone wanting to trash it. Seriously, read some of the "newbie" rules and try not to step on any of the fish toes on here.*



tobacmon said:


> O K simple and straight to the point I always say----I'm up in the years so I would say leave me the F*** alone and I'll leave you alone! Mind your business & I'll mind mine.
> 
> Another phase comes to mind--"Don't start none won't be none!"
> 
> Hows That !
> 
> LOL


Paul, you said it about as plain as plain can be and right on the money. If ya can't understand that then you just can't read.:clap2:


----------



## Delsana

As I said, I have not said one way or the other, I generally take the role of the devils advocate, regardless.

I simply quote what's in the book, and my opinion on it.

Also, do not limit the possibilities of this forum, limits are never acceptable, however it is obvious I hit the chord I was looking for... now to let the way of conversations, to do the rest for me.

Edit:

If I'm guilty of instigation, it's of intelligent thought.


----------



## defcon3

Delsana said:


> But, it's obvious that he didn't... it's even in the bible... if need be I'll quote the passage, but our bodies are meant to be a Temple to God, I'm quite a religious person so in my youth when I read that I made certain I followed it to the best of my ability.
> 
> You can do as you like, and you can be forgiven, but your body is supposed to follow those guidelines.


I would say that your interpretation of 1 Cor. 16:19-20 is skewed...

This is a typical response for Christians who don't smoke or drink, it's sad/funny as the same ones who stuff white-sugar, fat, McDonalds, soggy donuts, junk food and all other kinds of processed foods and poison into their couch-potato-temples as they condemn one and condone another...

I am follower of Christ, obviously far from perfect, and do my best not to judge another believer as instructed...

Perhaps this specific verse given to the church of Corinth was more to do with prostitution, adultery, and using their bodies in pagan rituals, then personal views on tobacco and drinking...

Colossians 2:16


----------



## Habanolover

Delsana said:


> As I said, I have not said one way or the other, I generally take the role of the devils advocate, regardless.


Nothing wrong with that.



Delsana said:


> I simply quote what's in the book, and my opinion on it.


Actually I would say that it is your "interpretation" of it.



Delsana said:


> Also, do not limit the possibilities of this forum, limits are never acceptable, however it is obvious I hit the chord I was looking for... now to let the way of conversations, to do the rest for me.


The possibilities of this forum are very limited when it comes to discussions of religion or politics. There will be none!



Delsana said:


> If I'm guilty of instigation, it's of intelligent thought.


This, is an opinion.


----------



## Cigary

madurolover said:


> This, is an opinion.


ROFL,,,this last one made me wish for keyboard splash guard. :whoo:


----------



## danmcmartin

Ya, this thread took a turn for the strange. It is entertaining, however.


----------



## commonsenseman

Delsana said:


> As I said, I have not said one way or the other, I generally take the role of the devils advocate, regardless.
> 
> I simply quote what's in the book, and my opinion on it.
> 
> Also, do not limit the possibilities of this forum, limits are never acceptable, however it is obvious I hit the chord I was looking for... now to let the way of conversations, to do the rest for me.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> If I'm guilty of instigation, it's of intelligent thought.


WTF


----------



## tobacmon

Paul, you said it about as plain as plain can be and right on the money. If ya can't understand that then you just can't read.:clap2:[/QUOTE]

Why thank you---


----------



## Delsana

Good Morning,

Onto my responses...

Truthfully, while they may be opinions, I can assure you they aren't my own interpretations of it, after all... they're very blatant.

Regardless, if the topic is too sensitive (seems to be too sensitive almost everywhere), then I'll let it be.

However as I previously stated initially, in all technicality and legal form, there is truly nothing "giving" us this "right". Which probably is the main reason you're having so much struggle with it, because even if your stance is that your rights are being infringed upon, and that it's wrong... well just look at what 9/11 did to our country. People don't care if the rights are infringed upon, if we're safe, and as such they may be pushing this underneath those desires to be safe (from all things), and so you may be fighting a losing battle, despite each victory you have, many more losses take places, and many more activitists are there to fill the void.

But, I for one, am a person supporting your desires, though on the more intellectual level is where I stand, and as such while it may seem or even be futile, and giving up definitely isn't the answer, it looks bleak, unless you can find a new and more "effective" stance.

Edit:

Also to the statements towards me, understand once more that I have stated neither yay nor nay, and thus don't try to judge me, as I am not particularly judging you as much as once more focusing on the intellectual side of this discussion so as to give it a more "logical" view.


----------



## zeavran1

Unfortunately, due to boredom, I have officially lost interest with this thread.


----------



## danmcmartin

:deadhorse:

As I always tell my wife, I'm right, your wrong, end of disucssion.

I don't expect that to work any better here then it does with her.:smoke2:


----------



## Cigary

Delsana said:


> Good Morning,
> 
> Onto my responses...
> 
> Truthfully, while they may be opinions, I can assure you they aren't my own interpretations of it, after all... they're very blatant.
> 
> Regardless, if the topic is too sensitive (seems to be too sensitive almost everywhere), then I'll let it be.
> 
> However as I previously stated initially, in all technicality and legal form, there is truly nothing "giving" us this "right". Which probably is the main reason you're having so much struggle with it, because even if your stance is that your rights are being infringed upon, and that it's wrong... well just look at what 9/11 did to our country. People don't care if the rights are infringed upon, if we're safe, and as such they may be pushing this underneath those desires to be safe (from all things), and so you may be fighting a losing battle, despite each victory you have, many more losses take places, and many more activitists are there to fill the void.
> 
> But, I for one, am a person supporting your desires, though on the more intellectual level is where I stand, and as such while it may seem or even be futile, and giving up definitely isn't the answer, it looks bleak, unless you can find a new and more "effective" stance.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Also to the statements towards me, understand once more that I have stated neither yay nor nay, and thus don't try to judge me, as I am not particularly judging you as much as once more focusing on the intellectual side of this discussion so as to give it a more "logical" view.


Nice to know that you are on a higher intellectual level. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## commonsenseman

Delsana said:


> Also to the statements towards me, understand once more that I have stated neither yay nor nay, and thus don't try to judge me, as I am not particularly judging you as much as once more focusing on the intellectual side of this discussion so as to give it a more "logical" view.


You did state that you think smoking is morally wrong actually.

_"many people say "God-given rights", and then they respect, and even worship or thank God for their ability to smoke, do drugs, and other such things (because after all these things were created or at least their initial forms were formed by God during the creation and forming of this planet), which while it sounds right, you also have to look into what the Bible and what religion really does state, and very blatantly two things are stated._

_1. Your body is the Temple of God, as such you will do no harm to it, or project any defacement._

_2. God is to come first in your life, thus the rules are blatant, you have no decision or violation in such cases, and it isn't up for interpretation, and while God may not actually have you kill your first-born son, if he asks or tells you to, you will be willing to do so, for His will and His work is greater than us all."_

You're not looking at it from an intellectual level at all.

P.S. Did you just join this forum to get in arguments???


----------



## Delsana

No, indeed I made an account for several reasons, one such reason to discuss this and a few other things, I hate arguments.

First, I didn't say it was morally wrong, I said it was religiously wrong, I didn't say I was against or for it, simply tried to rid the excuses for said actions. However, since religious conversations aren't warranted or wanted here, I'll end that side, though I definitely did look at it from an intellectual side on the religious form, as well as the non religious reasons why there is no true "right", which are as I stated below.


----------



## Plop007

defcon3 said:


> I would say that your interpretation of 1 Cor. 16:19-20 is skewed...
> 
> This is a typical response for Christians who don't smoke or drink, it's sad/funny as the same ones who stuff white-sugar, fat, McDonalds, soggy donuts, junk food and all other kinds of processed foods and poison into their couch-potato-temples as they condemn one and condone another...
> 
> I am follower of Christ, obviously far from perfect, and do my best not to judge another believer as instructed...
> 
> Perhaps this specific verse given to the church of Corinth was more to do with prostitution, adultery, and using their bodies in pagan rituals, then personal views on tobacco and drinking...
> 
> Colossians 2:16


Totally agree with you man.

I myself am a Catholic, Christian. I believe we do have the right to smoke or drink. I know people have different interpertations on verses and things in the Bible but hey Life is short and we might not be saints but we can live together in happiness under God  I say just respect God and others and dont be a dick and you will do fine in life.


----------



## Delsana

Plop007 said:


> Totally agree with you man.
> 
> I myself am a Catholic, Christian. I believe we do have the right to smoke or drink. I know people have different interpertations on verses and things in the Bible but hey Life is short and we might not be saints but we can live together in happiness under God  I say just respect God and others and dont be a dick and you will do fine in life.


I tried to be more blatant but it seems I wasn't clear enough.

The problem and reason religion is so skewed is because we can continue to reinterpret very blatant facts and laws or rules, and even commandments; making them mean other things.

I do not "interpret" I read it as it is, and I can not see how in any feasible manner you could interpret it in any other way. Now via forgiveness, you will of course be forgiven, however that would mean you have to also work towards not making the same violations.

I state this simply because I don't like seeing others make excuses for things, when they're unneeded and accomplish nothing. Accept your flaws and failings, and even sins, and instead work towards improvement.


----------



## Habanolover

Religious threads are not allowed at Puff so I am going to close this thread.

If another mod wants to reopen it please feel free to do so.
If anyone else has a good reason why it should be reopened then pm me or another mod and we will discuss whether to do so or not.


----------

